A few years back, my friend and I attended a panel discussing a Facebook group, the “Gentlemen’s Club,” that several male dentist students had set up.[1] The postings included sexist and misogynist comments about female classmates and the panel set out to address how to respond and promote a more respectful campus culture. I met my friend 25 year ago, while we were both undergraduates. At the time, she worked in women’s organizations and provided advocacy for women experiencing violence. But she had been away from that world for many years. At the end of the panel, my friend turned to me and announced her surprise that nothing had really changed in 25 years.

Her point was twofold. The attitudes revealed in the “Gentleman’s Club” echoed those on campuses during our undergraduate years. That hadn’t really changed. But her point spoke to another way in which nothing has changed. She felt disappointed that, in 25 years, we had not developed much new thinking about the problems. It struck her that we still doing the same kind of work to respond to the same old problems.

The “Gentlemen’s Club” presents only one example of current problems on Canadian campuses.

In recent years, Canadians have been confronted by seemingly endless stories about sexual harassment and violence on campuses across the country. At Saint Mary’s University, my own institution, a video surfaced in 2013 showing senior students leading new students in a chant about rape.[2] That year, students at the University of British Columbia, on the other side of the country, recited the same chant.[3] About a year later, the University of Ottawa suspended hockey players suspected of having participated in a gang rape.[4] Several universities have grappled with revelations about faculty members’ inappropriate behaviour toward students.

These highly publicized events have garnered widespread public condemnation and motivated universities and governments to respond.

In the past decade, we have seen universities develop prevention programs and work to improve their response to complaints. Universities are working on better policies, protocols and services aimed at addressing rape culture, sexual violence and confusion about the meaning of consent. Provincial governments have debated, and some have passed, legislation requiring universities to have sexual violence policies.[5] Other have created more informal agreements.[6]

All this activity builds on work started 20 years ago when campus sexual violence first became visible.[7] My friend and I remember the “no means no” stickers and buttons that littered campus and the “take back the night” marches organized by newly mobilized campus women centres. Since then, many sexual violence prevention and information programs have been implemented on campuses across North America and in the UK.

But, despite all this effort, universities continue to confront issues relating to sexual and gendered violence on university campuses. While we are witnessing a new wave of activity and interest in the problem, nothing has really changed.

The research literature suggests several reasons why programs have had limited effect on campus culture:

students can dismiss what they have learned in various training programs as applicable only to others [9]

programs are based on common sense but are not well grounded in theory[10]

programs have also been developed without much research having been done on how students understand sex and how they understand and negotiate consent[11]

These arguments have merit, but my work suggests that we might be using the wrong tools to promote broad cultural change on campuses.

I want to frame the problem in a particular way that I think helps us understand the limitations of the interventions we have pursued. To do this, I draw from those who work on complexity theory.[12]

Those who write about complexity describe three contexts relevant to the research proposed here: simple, complicated, and complex.[13] Simple problems are characterized by repeating patterns. They have identifiable linear, cause and effect relationships. These problems may be addressed with “best practices.” Complicated problems require expertise to uncover the less obvious cause-effect relationships and underlying patterns. While there may be more than one solution to a complicated problem, the resolution is still driven by facts. Complex problems present as “fluid and unpredictable.”[14] Because they are non-linear[15] they require innovative responses and creative methods to uncover patterns.[16]

As Snowden and Boone[17] suggest, fixing a Ferrari presents a complicated problem but fixing a rainforest involves complexity. And campus sexual violence is more like a rainforest than a Ferrari. The “rape culture” that supports sexual violence does not present with identifiable causes and effects and how it will respond to interventions is unpredictable. Yet programs and policies to address it work only at the simple or complicated aspects of the problem. Our responses have relied on facts, best practices, expertise and the search for cause-effect relationships.

Responses to university rape culture have tended to assume linear relationships between causes (e.g., students’ adherence to rape myths) and effects (e.g., sexist comments and sexual harassment). We teach students facts about rape, to counter the myths, and expect their behaviour to change accordingly. And sometimes it does. But we have not seen these changes result in the broad culture change anticipated by many policies, programs and interventions.

From a complexity perspective, our responses to university rape culture have failed to recognize that complex problems do not respond well to solutions that assume static, cause-effect relationships.

With that said, how do we get at the complexity? How do we generate data about the complexity so that we can make decisions and promote actions that promote broad culture change on university campuses?

I am working on a project exploring these questions using narrative research methods. I have asked students about their experiences (what happened?) instead of their opinion (what should we do?). The questionnaire I used, called a signification framework,[18] began by asking students to tell a brief story about an experience. The “story prompts” asked about experiences with sexual consent, “rape culture” and general campus safety. They could write about a positive or negative experience.

The stories ranged from sexual harassment to rape; from annoyances to crimes. Some described incidents that had been covered in the media. They recounted incidents in bars, residences and public spaces on campus. Some stories were about consensual relationships that students felt good about or incidents in which bystanders intervened. But most stories evoked highly negative emotions for students, most commonly anger and worry. Just under half the student said they felt disappointed and one third felt powerless by their experience.

The questionnaire went on to ask students what the stories meant to them. This approach has allowed me to explore patterns in students’ interpretations of their stories rather than my own. Sensemaker® software[19] is used to identify and illustrate patterns.

Most students thought their stories were more about relations between genders and sexualized culture than individual beliefs. Students tended to think that changing public awareness and cultural norms would have had more effect on their stories than implementing more roles or policies.

Both these patterns reveal that we will not change students’ stories or experiences by changing individual beliefs or instituting more rules, regulations or policies. The patterns reveal that complexity underpins students’ experiences and that training to change attitudes or instituting rules, while necessary, are insufficient approaches to changing campus culture.

Ultimately, the students’ narratives provide a window on their experiences, and how they understand them. Looking through this window will open opportunities to trigger broad culture change so that the next generation of students have a different experience of our campuses.

Funding for Professor Crocker’s project was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Department of Community Services (Government of Nova Scotia). This blog post is based on a paper delivered by Professor Crocker to the Manchester Centre for Regulation, Governance and Public Law (ManReg) in November 2017. ManReg is based in the School of Law at the University of Manchester.

Ever wondered why more women don’t report upskirting to the police? Here’s one possible reason – some police simply do not take this form of harassment seriously. Indeed, some seem to think it’s funny.

A couple of days ago, UK Cop Humour re-posted a piece from the Bexley Gazette containing images of upskirting. The photo is of two women in the process of being arrested by two police officers – taken presumably by a member of the public – and shows them in a humiliating and degrading position. Held down by police over the bonnet of a police car, with their skirts raised and underwear showing, they cannot adjust their clothing and must suffer the glare of the public on their bodies. The decision of UK Cop Humour to re-post this image is seriously troubling.

Three Laws Criminalising Aspects of Sex Work in Canada Declared in Breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Vikki Lang (Durham Law School)

‘It’s about whether or not we believe that sex workers are people deserving of the same rights and dignity as the rest of the public’ – Plaintiffs’ Memorandum, Bedford v Canada 2012

On the 20th December 2013, the landmark decision of Attorney General of Canada v. Terri Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott was reached.In this case, three sex workers used the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to successfully challenge laws that criminalised certain actions relating to selling sex. Canada’s highest court has ruled that three provisions of Canada’s Criminal Code, s. 210 (keeping or being found in a bawdy house), s. 212(1)(j) (living on the avails of prostitution), and s. 213(1)(c) (communicating in public for the purpose of prostitution) violate the s. 7 right to security of the person protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All three laws have been struck down.

In the decision the court said:

‘The prohibitions at issue do not merely impose conditions on how prostitutes operate. They go a critical step further, by imposing dangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a risky – but legal – activity from taking steps to protect themselves from the risk.” (para 60)’

This landmark decision saw sex workers, for the first time, successfully rely on human rights legislation to protect their safety and freedom in relation to their occupation. The plaintiffs successfully argued that their right to liberty and security of the person was breached as they were forced to break the law and risk arrest in order to take actions that increase their security and safety. (more…)

The Church of England is set to allow the appointment of gay bishops, even if they are in a civil partnership, provided they have not been sexually active whilst in the priesthood. The guidance will outline that sexual orientation must not be taken into account when considering whether a person is suitable to be a bishop (see the document here). Last year, Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Williams twice refused to allow a homosexual to become a bishop; the guidance aims to prevent such discriminatory action. However, General Synod member Christina Rees warns that the guidance is ‘too open’: for example it says that a selection committee could veto a gay candidate if ‘the appointment of the candidate would cause division and disunity within the diocese in question’, which it could easily argue is the case.

Dan Savage has been awarded a ‘Special Achievement’ Webby Award for his work on the ‘It Gets Better Project’ which provides support for the LGBT community who are victims of bullying. The project was founded by Dan Savage in 2010 after the suicide of Billy Lucas. Originating on the YouTube channel, the project depicts ordinary people and various celebrities sharing their experience and providing support to LGBT youth who face bullying and harassment.The Albert Kennedy Trust is also aiming to raise awareness of difficulties the LGBT community face through the launch of a new television advert, although with a very different tone. (more…)

In an eventful first half of the month, some pearls of wisdom have hit the newswires …

In the third ever sexual harassment claim against a male employer in Russia, the presiding judge offered this insight: “If we had no sexual harassment we would have no children”.

Meanwhile, upon joining the campaign calling for a rethink of the legal aid cuts, Joanna Lumley observed that: “Justice is only justice if it is available to everyone” … truer words have ne’er been spoken.

THE MONTH TO DATE

Marriage, Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Partnership

Topical coverage from the BBC on 14 February reported that proposals before the coalition government to implement s202 of the Equality act 2010 are being discussed. The amendment, passed in the Lords last year, would remove the ban on civil partnerships carried out in religious locations. It is noteworthy that religious organisations will not be forced to allow the civil partnerships ceremonies to take place within their religious places. The tension arises again on whether the religious bodies’ rights and beliefs can override the right of civil partners to exercise their choice. The discussion promises to be rich in light of the Equality Act 2010. (more…)